|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Phil.Lippincott wrote: > Hi Art, > > Very insightful suggestion. The answer is absolutely yes a density range tailored > scanner is possible.. I am currently writing artificial intelligence some advanced > firmware for calibration of a single CCD scanners light source temperature, > integration time, bias and gain for different films density ranges. Our new Aztek Pro > level Plateau CCD scanner will automatically tune itself to the film density it is > scanning on the fly. It's my effort to get a CCD scanner to try to simulate the > dynamic range that I and our customers have grown to expect from drum scanners. By > the way simulate is the operative word nothing can do it. > Meanwhile suggestion of simply designing and building a relatively low end scanner > with one good lens, tuned light source, video CCD circuit design tailored to a film > type and density range is totally feasible. You mentioned chromes. Most CCD scanners > are designed with video gamma 2.2 and chrome transparency or reflective circuitry > because it's easy. Yet the film is not a gamma at all it's an "S" shaped curve with > specific film density spectral highlight and shadow range. So a better design is to > tailor the scanner for the media not the monitor or printer. This exactly what Aztek > is about. Unfortunately our products are relatively high-end for a lot of peoples > budgets. > > Phil, Need a beta tester? ;-) Seriously though, my experience is that most people who do a fair amount of photography tend to fall in to the chrome camp or the neg camp. I wonder if in compromising scanners to operate in both forms, which seemingly demand very different requirements, in hardware, firmware and software, this might be disadvantageous in offering the best functional scanner. I'm not suggesting that a chrome scanner should not contain enough options to scan a neg, but that the results might not meet even the compromised result that a dual purpose scanner would. So, if I was told tomorrow that my scanner could be converted to a "chrome optimized" unit and the results were improved at the sacrifice of the negative scan quality, I'd say "go right ahead". My ratio of chromes to negs is probably at least 100:1 and probably closer to 500:1. Others, who shoot mainly print film, might even benefit more with a optimization for negs, and really well off photographers might buy two. It would seem that even low priced scanner might "pull up their socks" if they were so optimized. Art > www.aztek.com > > Arthur Entlich wrote: > > >>Hi Phil, >> >>Very interesting slant on this issue... >> >>This may seem either silly or obvious or both. >> >>If a scanner could be optimized for just transparency work could a >>better film scanner result? >> >>I shoot almost no neg film, personally. If a manufacturer made a >>scanner that was optimized for slides only, and as a result made a much >>more neg scan, I could live with it, or buy a cheap scanner that was >>optimized for negs should I require it. I would be willing to give up >>scanning color negs completely for a 20% improvement in slides scanning. >> >>I wonder if there are others who would make the same decision if it was >>an option? >> >>Art >> >>Phil.Lippincott wrote: >> >> >>>Paul and Friends >>> >>> The blue CCD channel is generally the weakest of the three color channels for >>>the sensor. On especially negative film the blue channel is the densest or >>>darkest channel. Thus there is a conflict between the least sensitive channel >>>needing to scan the most difficult darkest film densities on negative films. >>>This both why a yellow posterization cast exists on a lot of CCD scanning of >>>negatives and why the scanner engineers like to turn up the blue channel gain, >>>integration time and sensitivity in blue. Yet if they turn up the sensitivity >>>it also pushes the CCD into a noise condition of over modulation and yes banding >>>in the blue channel distinguishable from the others. This whole process is a >>>catch 22 which is very frustrating to CCD scanner designers, engineers and >>>software developers. We need better CCDs or PMT (photo multiplier) / drum >>>scanners to avoid these issues. >>> >>>Phil Lippincott >>>www.aztek.com >>> >>>"Paul D. DeRocco" wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I don't think it could be, because then it wouldn't be able to do superfine >>>>mode with a single line. It sounds like it's three lines, each of which has >>>>RGB sensors, whose only purpose is to be able to capture three scan lines at >>>>a time. I don't think the fact that there are three lines has anything to do >>>>with the fact that there are three primary colors--they could have used a >>>>four-line CCD and made it four times as fast as superfine mode. >>>> >>>>Or maybe I'm missing something. >>>> >>>>-- >>>> >>- >>Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate >>subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. >> > > - > Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate > subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. > > - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.